SpecEval: Evaluating Model Adherence to Behavior Specifications
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Companies that develop foundation models publish behavioral guidelines they pledge their models will follow, but it remains unclear if models actually do so. While providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have published detailed specifications describing both desired safety constraints and qualitative traits for their models, there has been no systematic audit of adherence to these guidelines. We introduce an automated framework that audits models against their providers specifications by parsing behavioral statements, generating targeted prompts, and using models to judge adherence. Our central focus is on three way consistency between a provider specification, its model outputs, and its own models as judges; an extension of prior two way generator validator consistency. This establishes a necessary baseline: at minimum, a foundation model should consistently satisfy the developer behavioral specifications when judged by the developer evaluator models. We apply our framework to 16 models from six developers across more than 100 behavioral statements, finding systematic inconsistencies including compliance gaps of up to 20 percent across providers.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 0 of its 1 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2025.
Builds on
0 of 1 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 6.
8 papers.
- 2025Stress-Testing Model Specs Reveals Character Differences among Language Modelscited by 10
- 2026The Stability Trap: Evaluating the Reliability of LLM-Based Instruction Adherence Auditingcited by 1
- 2026Guardian-as-an-Advisor: Advancing Next-Generation Guardian Models for Trustworthy LLMscited by 1
- 2026Self-CTRL: Self-Consistency Training with Reinforcement Learningcited by 1
- 2025Offscript: Automated Auditing of Instruction Adherence in LLMscited by 0
- 2026A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Researchcited by 0
- 2026DUET: Dual-Teacher On-Policy Distillation via Same-Weight Disagreement for Prohibition Compliancecited by 0
- 2026Detecting Inconsistencies in Model Specifications with LLM-as-Verifier Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026Detecting Inconsistencies in Model Specifications with LLM-as-Verifier Reasoning1 Oct 2026
- 2026DUET: Dual-Teacher On-Policy Distillation via Same-Weight Disagreement for Prohibition Compliance29 Jul 2026
- 2026A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Research24 Jul 2026
- 2026Self-CTRL: Self-Consistency Training with Reinforcement Learning16 Jun 2026
- 2026Guardian-as-an-Advisor: Advancing Next-Generation Guardian Models for Trustworthy LLMs8 Apr 2026
- 2026The Stability Trap: Evaluating the Reliability of LLM-Based Instruction Adherence Auditing16 Jan 2026
- 2025Offscript: Automated Auditing of Instruction Adherence in LLMs11 Dec 2025
- 2025Stress-Testing Model Specs Reveals Character Differences among Language Models9 Oct 2025